S2000 STR prep resource
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,340
Likes: 0
From: Frankfort, KY
Originally Posted by dnace,Jan 24 2011, 06:03 PM
I thought drilling the trunk to accomodate the canisters was illegal in STR?
You can make all though holes you need if its to mount a legal mod.
Rules Rules Rules.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 1
From: Azusa
The first point is that the SPAC & SEB have taken a rule with the exact same wording, and published a clarification that a replacement control arm may include a non-standard ball joint with non-standard segment lengths..
A clarification, by definition, does not change the meaning of the rule; it merely explains it.
If the clarification published for the SP rule doesn't change the meaning of the rule, then the ST rule must mean the same thing, since it says the same thing.
If that clarification does change the meaning of the rule, then it should have been treated formally as a rule change instead: being submitted for member comment, approved by the board of directors, and probably given an effective date of January 1, 2012.
A second point is that a strict reading of the clarified version of 14.8.I does not seem to exclude changes in the length of the ball joint segments. If the clarification had said "only lateral adjustments to the effective length of the arm", than I would understand that was the intent of the clarification. The bit about ball joints wouldn't even have had to be added. However, the clarified rule allows camber kits which include a control arm or mount which provides lateral adjustment of the effective arm length. I know about "if it doesn't say you can, you can't", but the rules have made an open-ended allowance here. They don't say that the replacement can be made out of some other material, so does that mean that an aluminum replacement would be illegal? I don't think so.
If the point of the clarification was to disallow a change in the spindle to pivot distance, just say that! "Replacement hardware which changes the vertical or horizontal distance between the spindle and the ball joint pivot is not permitted." Done.
A clarification, by definition, does not change the meaning of the rule; it merely explains it.
If the clarification published for the SP rule doesn't change the meaning of the rule, then the ST rule must mean the same thing, since it says the same thing.
If that clarification does change the meaning of the rule, then it should have been treated formally as a rule change instead: being submitted for member comment, approved by the board of directors, and probably given an effective date of January 1, 2012.
A second point is that a strict reading of the clarified version of 14.8.I does not seem to exclude changes in the length of the ball joint segments. If the clarification had said "only lateral adjustments to the effective length of the arm", than I would understand that was the intent of the clarification. The bit about ball joints wouldn't even have had to be added. However, the clarified rule allows camber kits which include a control arm or mount which provides lateral adjustment of the effective arm length. I know about "if it doesn't say you can, you can't", but the rules have made an open-ended allowance here. They don't say that the replacement can be made out of some other material, so does that mean that an aluminum replacement would be illegal? I don't think so.
If the point of the clarification was to disallow a change in the spindle to pivot distance, just say that! "Replacement hardware which changes the vertical or horizontal distance between the spindle and the ball joint pivot is not permitted." Done.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 1
From: Azusa
Originally Posted by josh7owens,Jan 24 2011, 03:11 PM
You can make all though holes you need if its to mount a legal mod.
But in general, you may not make an unauthorized modification in order to facilitate an authorized modification.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by robinson,Jan 24 2011, 10:05 AM
Not technically true.
I ran the Mugen N1 ECU (AP1 ECU) last year, with it's 9000 RRM limiter.
I ran the Mugen N1 ECU (AP1 ECU) last year, with it's 9000 RRM limiter.
I also heard at one point that these cars have a "hard rev-limiter." Meaning, when you actually bump off of the std. 8200 rev limit, the car is actually doing closer to 8500 rpms. So, if you bump off the rev limiter at 9k your actually hitting approximately 9300 rpms...
This is why people with 06+ Ap2's don't exceed 8500 RPMS even with the option to go higher with their tuning options.
Of course, this might be completely wrong... and if so... I'm sure I'll get corrected shortly.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,784
Likes: 2
From: Greer, SC
Originally Posted by glagola1,Jan 24 2011, 12:58 PM
I've tried no bars and it is awesome but it sucks. 
No, really, I liked it for driving on bumpy roads but yes, transitions were horrible. There is little doubt in my mind that to achieve roll resistance like you'd want, the coil rates would be so high that bump compliance would be out of this world and the car wouldn't stay on the ground.
No, really, I liked it for driving on bumpy roads but yes, transitions were horrible. There is little doubt in my mind that to achieve roll resistance like you'd want, the coil rates would be so high that bump compliance would be out of this world and the car wouldn't stay on the ground.
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by ///MIKE,Jan 24 2011, 09:02 PM
I also heard at one point that these cars have a "hard rev-limiter." Meaning, when you actually bump off of the std. 8200 rev limit, the car is actually doing closer to 8500 rpms.
When on the stock limiter of 8200rpms, the motor will see ~8500rpm.
I've softened the limiter in my car (FlashPro), still at 8200 so I only see ~8300 when on the limiter. I can raise it depending on course design, but I don't see a huge reason to be revving the car much higher than that.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by ViperASR,Jan 24 2011, 11:31 PM
You are 100% correct and I have the datalogs to prove it.
When on the stock limiter of 8200rpms, the motor will see ~8500rpm.
I've softened the limiter in my car (FlashPro), still at 8200 so I only see ~8300 when on the limiter. I can raise it depending on course design, but I don't see a huge reason to be revving the car much higher than that.
When on the stock limiter of 8200rpms, the motor will see ~8500rpm.
I've softened the limiter in my car (FlashPro), still at 8200 so I only see ~8300 when on the limiter. I can raise it depending on course design, but I don't see a huge reason to be revving the car much higher than that.
We bumped there fairly often on our 04 and had no problems at all. Damn that was a nice car...
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Orthonormal,Jan 24 2011, 07:33 PM
The first point is that the SPAC & SEB have taken a rule with the exact same wording, and published a clarification that a replacement control arm may include a non-standard ball joint with non-standard segment lengths..
A clarification, by definition, does not change the meaning of the rule; it merely explains it.
If the clarification published for the SP rule doesn't change the meaning of the rule, then the ST rule must mean the same thing, since it says the same thing.
If that clarification does change the meaning of the rule, then it should have been treated formally as a rule change instead: being submitted for member comment, approved by the board of directors, and probably given an effective date of January 1, 2012.
A second point is that a strict reading of the clarified version of 14.8.I does not seem to exclude changes in the length of the ball joint segments. If the clarification had said "only lateral adjustments to the effective length of the arm", than I would understand that was the intent of the clarification. The bit about ball joints wouldn't even have had to be added. However, the clarified rule allows camber kits which include a control arm or mount which provides lateral adjustment of the effective arm length. I know about "if it doesn't say you can, you can't", but the rules have made an open-ended allowance here. They don't say that the replacement can be made out of some other material, so does that mean that an aluminum replacement would be illegal? I don't think so.
If the point of the clarification was to disallow a change in the spindle to pivot distance, just say that! "Replacement hardware which changes the vertical or horizontal distance between the spindle and the ball joint pivot is not permitted." Done.
A clarification, by definition, does not change the meaning of the rule; it merely explains it.
If the clarification published for the SP rule doesn't change the meaning of the rule, then the ST rule must mean the same thing, since it says the same thing.
If that clarification does change the meaning of the rule, then it should have been treated formally as a rule change instead: being submitted for member comment, approved by the board of directors, and probably given an effective date of January 1, 2012.
A second point is that a strict reading of the clarified version of 14.8.I does not seem to exclude changes in the length of the ball joint segments. If the clarification had said "only lateral adjustments to the effective length of the arm", than I would understand that was the intent of the clarification. The bit about ball joints wouldn't even have had to be added. However, the clarified rule allows camber kits which include a control arm or mount which provides lateral adjustment of the effective arm length. I know about "if it doesn't say you can, you can't", but the rules have made an open-ended allowance here. They don't say that the replacement can be made out of some other material, so does that mean that an aluminum replacement would be illegal? I don't think so.
If the point of the clarification was to disallow a change in the spindle to pivot distance, just say that! "Replacement hardware which changes the vertical or horizontal distance between the spindle and the ball joint pivot is not permitted." Done.